Pension of retired High Court Judge serving as Vice-Chairman had to be fixed under Part I, not Part III.

A retired High Court Judge appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal was treated, for pension purposes, as continuing to hold a constitutional office rather than a pensionable civil post under the Union or a State. Rule 15A equated the Vice-Chairman's service conditions with those of a serving High Court Judge, but the governing Act distinguished between Judges who had not held another pensionable civil post and those who had. Because a High Court Judge is not a Government servant and judicial independence excludes a master-servant relationship with the executive, the pension had to be fixed under Part I of the First Schedule, not Part III.

---

---

Issues: Whether a retired High Court Judge appointed as Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal was entitled, on retirement from that post, to have pension fixed under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, or under Part III of that Schedule.

Analysis: Rule 15A of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 made the conditions of service and perquisites of a Vice-Chairman the same as those admissible to a serving Judge of a High Court under the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. Under Section 14 of the Act, a Judge who has not held any other pensionable civil post is governed by Part I of the First Schedule, while Section 15 applies to a Judge who has held another pensionable civil post and has not elected Part I benefits. The decisive question was whether a High Court Judge, while drawing pension and serving as Vice-Chairman, could be said to be holding a pensionable post under the Union or a State. The constitutional scheme, including Articles 50, 214, 217, 219, 221 and 229, shows that a High Court Judge is a holder of a constitutional office, not a Government servant. Judicial independence and separation of the judiciary from the executive exclude any master and servant relationship between the Government and a High Court Judge. A retired Judge serving as Vice-Chairman therefore could not be treated as holding a pensionable post under the Union or a State.

Conclusion: The pension of the respondent was required to be fixed under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, and not under Part III. The appeal failed on the pension issue.

---